Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 24 Jun 2023 21:05:28 +0000 | From | Benno Lossin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/7] rust: init: wrap type checking struct initializers in a closure |
| |
On 6/24/23 17:03, Björn Roy Baron wrote: > On Saturday, June 24th, 2023 at 11:25, Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@proton.me> wrote: > >> In the implementation of the init macros there is a `if false` statement >> that type checks the initializer to ensure every field is initialized. >> Since the next patch has a stack variable to store the struct, the >> function might allocate too much memory on debug builds. Putting the >> struct into a closure ensures that even in debug builds no stack >> overflow error is caused. In release builds this was not a problem since >> the code was optimized away due to the `if false`. >> >> Signed-off-by: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@proton.me> >> --- >> rust/kernel/init/macros.rs | 18 +++++++++++------- >> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/rust/kernel/init/macros.rs b/rust/kernel/init/macros.rs >> index df4281743175..1e0c4aca055a 100644 >> --- a/rust/kernel/init/macros.rs >> +++ b/rust/kernel/init/macros.rs >> @@ -1037,14 +1037,18 @@ macro_rules! __init_internal { >> // We use unreachable code to ensure that all fields have been mentioned exactly >> // once, this struct initializer will still be type-checked and complain with a >> // very natural error message if a field is forgotten/mentioned more than once. >> - #[allow(unreachable_code, clippy::diverging_sub_expression)] >> + #[allow(unreachable_code, >> + clippy::diverging_sub_expression, >> + clippy::redundant_closure_call)] >> if false { >> - $crate::__init_internal!(make_initializer: >> - @slot(slot), >> - @type_name($t), >> - @munch_fields($($fields)*,), >> - @acc(), >> - ); >> + (|| { >> + $crate::__init_internal!(make_initializer: >> + @slot(slot), >> + @type_name($t), >> + @munch_fields($($fields)*,), >> + @acc(), >> + ); >> + })(); > > Is it necessary to call this closure? Typechecking of the closure should happen even without calling it.
You are right, I do not need to call it. Will fix.
-- Cheers, Benno
> >> } >> } >> Ok(__InitOk) >> -- >> 2.41.0 > > Cheers, > Björn
| |